PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES
vs.
EDUARDO DE JESUS y
ENRILE
GR NO. 134815
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco was a policeman

assigned to the Makati Police Station, Substation
Block No. 6 since March 16, 1973.

⦁ He delivered money for his employer every

afternoon. The money was placed in a plastic
bag3 and he used a bicycle for this extra job

2
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Ybasco was a familiar face among the other

cigarette vendors in the area

⦁ Dante Manansala, Eduardo de Jesus and Crispin

Del Rosario agreed to stage a robbery in the
afternoon of March 7, 1994

3
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Christopher Nash- financier for the heist

⦁ Toyota Corolla car with Plate No. TAX 732 from

Rolando Fajardo in Tanauan, Batangas.

⦁ Manansala, the appellant and Del Rosario alighted,

and conducted a surveillance of the area.

4
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Del Rosario- serves as look-out at the corner of

the Rustan’s Supermarke
⦁ Toyota Corolla car with Plate No. TAX 732 from
Rolando Fajardo in Tanauan, Batangas.

⦁ Manansala, the appellant and Del Rosario alighted,

and conducted a surveillance of the area.

5
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ At around 6:30 p.m., Ybasco emerged from the

office of his employer holding a plastic bag.

⦁ Manansala and the appellant confronted Ybasco

and told him, "May warrant of arrest ka." They
grabbed Ybasco, handcuffed him and dragged
him to the car

6
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Roberto Acosta, a roving security guard, saw the

incident and pulled out his .38 caliber gun

⦁ Del Rosario confronted Acosta and grappled with

him for the possession of the gun

7
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ As Del Rosario managed to wrest possession of

the gun from Acosta, Manansala ordered Del
Rosario to shoot.

8
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Manansala said that they would have no problem

because the mayor was his ninong.

⦁ However, when he looked inside Ybasco’s bag

and found that it only contained ₱5,000 instead of
the expected US$250,000

9
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Ybasco was transported to a sugar farm at

Barangay Pulo, Cabuyao, Laguna. Manansala
and the appellant took him out of the car and told
him that he would be allowed to board a tricycle

10
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ The appellant suddenly shot Ybasco on the

head.

⦁ The Ybasco fell to the ground with his hands still

handcuffed

11
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ SPO4 Tomas Sipin and SPO1 Ramoncito Ocampo,

arrived at the Ayala Center to conduct an on-the-
spot investigation of the killing of Acosta and
Ybasco’s abduction.

12
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Yolanda dela Rapa and Juanito Mendoza -serves

as eye witness of the crime

13
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ In the meantime, the policemen were able to

ascertain that the Toyota Corolla car with Plate No.
TAX 732 belonged to Cecilia Tan and her husband
Christopher Nash, and that the latter gave the car
keys to Rolando Fajardo for car repairs, with
instructions to turn it over later to Del Rosario and
the appellant

14
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ On March 9 and 10, 1994, Rolando Fajardo gave

sworn statements38 to the Makati Police Operatives
where he stated that at 8:00 a.m. of March 7, 1994,
he turned over the car to the De Jesus and Del
Rosario

15
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ On March 9, 1994, police operatives arrested Del

Rosario at his residence in Barangay Tadloc, Los
Baños, Laguna.3

⦁ Manansala was arrested at his residence in

Barangay Canlubang, Laguna.

16
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ PNP Medico-Legal Officer Joselito Rodrigo

performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Ybasco

⦁ Cause of death is hemorrhage as a result of gunshot

wound of the head

17
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ Del Rosario was arraigned on April 5, 1994, assisted

by counsel, and pleaded guilty to the charge

⦁ On April 15, 1994, Manansala, assisted by counsel,

was arraigned and pleaded not guilty

18
 VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

⦁ On April 21, 1994, Del Rosario appeared before the

court and stated that he wanted to testify and elucidate
on how the crime charged was committed by him and
his cohorts.

⦁ The court, thereafter, rendered judgment convicting

Del Rosario of robbery with homicide and sentencing
him to suffer reclusion perpetua

19
 Version of the Defense
De Jesus denied any involvement whatsoever in
the crime charged.

He did not know of any person named John Nash

He denied being in the company of Manansala,

Del Rosario and a certain Tonton in the evening of
March 7, 1994

20
 Version of the Defense
He claimed that he is just a tricycle driver

On March 7, 1994, he and Mrs. Silvina Lumba had an

agreement that he pick her up up from the market,
then drop her off at her house

21
 Version of the Defense
⦁ The appellant admitted that he had known Manansala in
Pampanga since he was a boy

⦁ He alleged that Del Rosario was the brother of his wife

22
 Version of the Defense
⦁ The appellant was in the house of his aunt on March 11,
1994 when he learned that he had been implicated in the
case.

⦁ Witnesses:
1. Silvina Lumba
2. Rosario Dizon Lopez
3. Jennifer Obina

23
RTC RULLING
“ ⦁
EDUARDO DE JESUS Y
ENRILE GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide and
sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of DEATH

25
Issues:

1. The trial court erred in not finding that the

evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to prove
the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.

2. The trial court erred in declaring that accused-

appellant conspired with the other accused in
committing the crime charged.

26
Issues:
3. The trial court erred in admitting the judicial
confession of accused crispin del rosario and in
using the same against the other accused, including
accused-appellant eduardo de jesus, implicating
them to the crime charged, despite the fact that the
same is inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the
affidavit of accused dante manansala pointing to
accused-appellant as the assailant is likewise
inadmissible in evidence.

27
Issues:
4. The trial court erred in outrightly disregarding
accused-appellant’s defense of alibi and denial,
despite the fact that the same is credible and was
corroborated by another witness.

5. The trial court erred in appreciating against the

accused-appellant the aggravating circumstance of
treachery.

28
Issues:
6. The trial court erred in holding that the crime of robbery
with homicide was committed despite the fact that no
robbery actually took place
7. The trial court erred in convicting the accused-
appellant and in imposing upon him the supreme
penalty of death, and in not acquitting him of the
crime charged, despite the fact that the
prosecution’s evidence against accused-appellant
failed to stand the crucible test of reasonable doubt
to overthrow the constitutionally guaranteed
presumption of innocence
29
Supreme Court
RULLING 30
⦁ The Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court

31
⦁ AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court

⦁ Eduardo de Jesus is found GUILTY of robbery with

homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, and
sentenced to suffer the DEATH PENALTY

32
⦁ June 24, 2006

⦁ REPUBLIC ACT No. 9346

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF

DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

33
Thanks!
34